Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
